PSALM 18: A LITURGICAL COUNTERPART TO 2 SAMUEL 22 2 Sam 22 and Ps 18 have been called double transmission texts. The texts contain parallel material to the extent which the texts are representations of one common text. However, in the case of 2 Sam 22 and Ps 18 significant variations between the two texts exist. An examination of these common types of variation, along with occasional evidence from less frequent types of variation, will provide insights into the sources the Masoretes used in their representation of the 2 Sam 22 and Ps 18. Collation Analysis A collation of 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 18 reveals 129 variants between the two texts. This collation focused on orthographical, lexical, morphological, and syntactical variation; therefore, variation in Masoretic accent marks (the Maqqef and Dagesh excepted) was explicitly excluded from the collation. Table 1 provides a statistical synopsis of these variants. The number of variants between the two texts can, itself, vary depending upon the collator’s principles of accountancy. For this study, the utmost care was taken to account for variation to the level of the letter to the extent practicable. At the same time, certain types of common variation were ignored in order to delimit the data in a manageable fashion for the scope of this study. For example, a comparison of 2 Sam 22:6 and Ps 18:6 yields the variant readings of yniBus; (S) and yniWbb's. (P). The defective and plene spellings (Bu and Wb) count as a variant, as do the Dagesh and double letters (B and bb). However, the difference regarding the 1 2 pointing of Samek is not considered a variant, since in all likelihood this difference stems from the other items of variation. Table 1. Statistical Synopsis of Variant Readings in 2 Sam 22 and Ps 18 Type of Variation Number of Percent of all Occurrences Variation Differences of Diction 25 19.5% Deflective versus Plene Spellings 24 18.8% Waw-related differences 14 10.9% Material without Correspondence 13 10.2% Differences in Suffix 12 9.4% Difference regarding Maqqef 12 9.4% Differences in Verbal Pointing 6 4.7% He-related differences 4 3.1% Nun-related differences 4 3.1% Differences regarding Dagesh 3 2.3% Miscellaneous differences 3 2.3% Differences of Gender 3 2.3% Deletion for Metrical Concerns (dl m cs) 2 1.6% Differences of Number 2 1.6% Differences in Word Order 2 1.6% Total Variants 129 3 A few additional exceptions apply to this letter-level analysis. Thirteen instances have been noted when either text contains “additional” material at the word-level. In these situations, the “additional” material of either source does not correspond to material in the other source. For example, Psalm 18:2 includes the expression yqiz.xi hwhy ^m.x'r.a, (“I love you, O LORD, my strength”). This material has no clear counterpart in 2 Sam 22; either the Masoretic sources for 2 Samuel 22 did not contain this expression or the Masoretes omitted the expression for reasons not readily apparent (e.g., metrical, theological, accidental). In this study, the entire expression is counted as one variant. Nearly, eighty percent of the variation between the two texts consists of the following common types of variation. “Differences in diction” (18.8% of all variation) are variants in which 2 Sam 22 and Ps 18 have chosen different words, which, in the context and syntax of the text, are alternative readings to each other. “Defective versus plene spellings” comprise 18% of all variation and include instances in which one text utilizes a short vowel (e.g., Qibbus) and the other text utilizes a long vowel (e.g., Shureq). “Material without correspondence,” as described in the discussion of Ps 18:2 above, account for 10.9% of all variation, as do Waw-related differences (e.g., one text uses a conjunctive Waw, while the other does not). “Differences in suffix” comprise 9.4% of the variation between the two texts, and this category frequently includes readings for which one source includes a personal pronoun suffix and the other does not. The final frequent point of variation is the use of Maqqef (9.4% of variation). Differences of Diction In twenty-five instances of variation, 2 Samuel 22 (S) and Psalm 18 (P) have provided varying readings that are differences in word-choice. These differences of diction often stem from texts’ preference for familiarity. 4 In at least seven instances, the differences of diction between S and P are caused by one of the texts using a more familiar word. In v. 5, S recounts the “waves of death” encompassing the speaker, while P reads “chords of death.” The S reading of yreB.v.mi occurs only five times in the Old Testament and is easily confused with the word meaning “cervical opening,” while the P reading of yleb.x, occurs much more frequently. Furthermore, the P reading closely resembles Ps 116:3, tw<m'-yleb.x, yniWpp'a]. The most probable explanation1 for this variant is that the textual tradition responsible for P, perhaps influenced by a parallel passage, adopted the more familiar of the lexical options. In the poetic parallels of verse 26-27, both texts describe God’s revelation of his character to “the blameless man.” However, each text utilizes a different rendering of “man”: S employs rABgI, while P makes use of rb;G.. Neither reading has a particularly strong claim to external support: BHS notes that a paucity of manuscripts for each text adopts the alternative reading. The most compelling piece of evidence relates to the OT usage of the S reading. Over twenty of its OT occurrences are found in the Samuel corpus, and the term often indicates the “might men” of David. A plausible explanation is that the textual tradition which produced S resorted to familiar terminology. This analysis of familiar-diction tendencies has included an example from both texts, so that neither text would be interpreted as more apt to choose the familiar lexical option. In fact, of the seven instances of this phenomenon, P is the revisionist text three times (18:5, 24, 33), and S is the revisionist text four times (22:7, 11, 26, 46). 1Craige represents a minority position on this instance of variation: yleb.x, “may be preferable for phonetic reasons.” Peter C. Craige, “A Royal Thanksgiving Psalm (18:1-51),” in Word Biblical Commentary: Psalms 1-50, edited by John D. W. Watts (Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 169. 5 The texts’ provide several other interesting cases of differences in diction. Of particular interest are the instances in which the texts utilize different lexical options in representing the divine. At verse 29, P uses yh;loa/, while S employs hw'hy.. A plausible explanation of this variation is that an older form in the transmission of the text applied the second masculine suffix to the tetragrammaton. An examination of the uses of the divine name in 2 Sam reveals that a pronominal suffix never affixes to the divine name in the historical book.2 Thus, S (or its source[s]), out of respect for the divine name, could have simply removed the suffix, and P (or its source[s]), for similar motive, could have chosen a different divine epithet. At verse 32, S utilizes the divine marker lae, and P reads H:Ala,. Critics have posited two explanations. Young considers the P reading an example of a “Northernism,” which introduces a dialect-based hypothesis.3 HALOT describes the P reading as a rare and late extended plural form that is frequent in Aramaic and Arabic. The relevant OT data with which to evaluate these claims is that the vast majority of the OT occurrences of H:Ala, are found in the book of Job. Archer explains that the provenance of Job has much to do with this point of lexical data: “. foreign locale would also account for the comparative rarity of the name Yahweh in most chapters of the book. Job shows a distinct preference for the pan-Semitic term, H:Ala, or ~yhiloa/, for God. Interestingly enough, the title Shaddai (“the Almighty”) occurs no less than thirty-one times in Job as against its sixteen occurrences in the rest of the Old 2In twenty-nine instances in 2 Sam, the Masoretic text includes an affix before the tetragrammaton. A prima facie quality counter-argument would question why a devotional treatment of the divine name would preclude pronominal suffixes, but allow affixes in front of the noun. While this question is a legitimate concern, it does not offer an adequate explanation for the fact that in 2 Sam the tetragrammaton is never affixed with an pronominal suffix. Furthermore, major Hebrew lexicons fail to provide one example of a suffixed tetragrammaton. hwhy in The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, ed. David J. A. Climes, vol. 4 (Sheffield: Sheffield, 1998), 122-50. hwhy in The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. M. E. J. Richardson, vol. 1 (Boston: Brill, 2001), 394-5. 3Theron Young, “Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22: Two Versions of the Same Song,” in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 59. 6 Testament. This evidence from the use of the divine names certainly tends to confirm the theory of a non-Israelite background.”4 Archer also holds forth the possibility of a “North Arabian dialect” or Aramaic original for the book of Job. Thus, the identification of the P reading as a “Northernism” appears unlikely.